On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:42:43AM +1000, Robert Barta wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:07:00PM +0100, Reinier Post wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:27:38AM +1000, Robert Barta wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I hope I did not miss an obvious solution to the following:
> > >
> > > I want
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:07:00PM +0100, Reinier Post wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:27:38AM +1000, Robert Barta wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I hope I did not miss an obvious solution to the following:
> >
> > I want a *caching* version of WWW::Mechanize.
>
> Why don't you just use a caching
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:27:38AM +1000, Robert Barta wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I hope I did not miss an obvious solution to the following:
>
> I want a *caching* version of WWW::Mechanize.
Why don't you just use a caching proxy server? Squid?
--
Reinier Post
On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 07:35:47PM -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> >
> >I want a *caching* version of WWW::Mechanize.
> >
> > - No, WWW::Mechanize::Cached does not cut it for me. It does not
> > honor any HTTP cache control headers. And, also, I think that
> > caching better belongs to the UserAgen
I want a *caching* version of WWW::Mechanize.
- No, WWW::Mechanize::Cached does not cut it for me. It does not
honor any HTTP cache control headers. And, also, I think that
caching better belongs to the UserAgent. Here it is much more
reusable anyway.
Patches are certainly welcome. Anyth
